[Lespaul66]

Hi

In new Performance Bike Magazine is the comparison of the new 1000 class supersport bikes...In dyno test R1 has most hp from the rear wheel

Honda 146.6hp
Kawasaki 147.7hp
Suzuki 144.4hp
YAMAHA 147.9hp

BUT THE MOST INTERESTING IS THE THRUST MEASURED FROM THE REAR WHEEL...

R1 has clearly most power at 3rd gear...see also other gears..not bad at all !!! Just think wheelies...

 

[R1one]

its on sale on the stand? let me check it out at my local books a million.
funny the front cover never mention 2004 models but just stated the bike. am i talking about the same mag here that gives you a free key chain? thanks

 

[Lespaul66]

magazine

This is the magazine I mentioned...

 

[R1one]

sweet thanks

 

[Daekwan]

Cool!

 

[02R1guy]

looks like the Gix and Honda have more

 

[wsbk996]

thats 1st gear dude!

 

[wsbk996]

it would be interesting to see how the traction or "force" changed if you could realistically simulate the aerodynamic forces imposed on these machines while circulating a race course. i would imagine their different shapes would alter the outcome as the their body work either helped or hindered their rear end traction.

 

[Juerg]

Why does this not surprise me?
http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72715&highlight=mcn+graph

I have said this several times here but some could not or did not want to understand and called me names then.

This is EXACTLY what I was saying, the "thrust vs. speed" graph

Wondering what these people have to say now?

:corn

 

[erixR1]

No differnent than understanding an all gear dyno run versus just a single gear pull.

I too lost them on the idea that once you allow the bike to be shifted, then its a different story as the bike only uses its upper RPM range. Only 9000 to 13000 matters on the move.

The ZX10 and Gixxer riders will do very well if they carry a pocket tig welder to weld your gear shift in place so you can only use one gear.

 

[LarsR1]

Juerg, like the lonely voice calling out in the wilderness...They called Copernicus crazy, they derided John the Baptist, they chastised Darwin. But fear not, you have carried the day, and you my friend stand vindicated and triumphant! :bow

 

[TAFB]

Juerg, the thrust curves in PB are not the same as taking a dynograph and moving the lines so that the hp at 13000 rpms is compared to the hp at 12000 rpms. a thrust curve compares tractive force v. speed and a dynograph compares hp v. rpm. apples and oranges.

 

[aronhalt]

The honda and gixxer have the most forgiving curves. They are flatter at peak meaning when you shift isn't as critical. It looks like if you shift to early on the R1 you will loose your ass because you fall into the 7000 RPM horsepower mystery vortex of science. It also looks like 1st gear is a lot shorter on the gixxer and honda. I believe that what we should look at is the area under the curve created by these individual curves as well as the shift points. In other words, follow first gear, pick a shift point, then stop the first gear curve and jump to the second gear. The object would be to find the shift points that provided the highest area's under the curve...then compare the resulting curves between the bikes. I.E which zone is bigger in the attached picture? It should be the fastest bike. Marketing HP numbers mean very little.

 

[WheelSpin]

Someday - hopefully soon - the engineers over at Yamaha Japan are going to accept that HP isn't the holy grail of engine tuning & go back to balancing the behavior of both the torque & HP curves to make smooth, tractable power delivery.

 

[fastprof]

It is interesting to note that all of these bikes have a dip in the midrange (I assume this is similar to the 7K rpm dip in the R1's power band) of these thrust curves, but only the R1 shows this dip on dyno graphs. Great find that will really help figuring out the best shift points for max accelleration.

 

[R1nZX]

Someday - hopefully soon - the engineers over at Yamaha Japan are going to accept that HP isn't the holy grail of engine tuning & go back to balancing the behavior of both the torque & HP curves to make smooth, tractable power delivery.

I'm with you. I love my new R1, but I wish they'd left the stroke the same (or lengthened it). Most of these bikes will never see a track, and on the street torque is more useful than having a sky-high redline and beating the other bikes' peak horsepower figures by 0.5%.

Of course, I can't argue with its proven track prowess.

 

[Daekwan]

I'm with you. I love my new R1, but I wish they'd left the stroke the same (or lengthened it). Most of these bikes will never see a track, and on the street torque is more useful than having a sky-high redline and beating the other bikes' peak horsepower figures by 0.5%.

Of course, I can't argue with its proven track prowess.

But then what about the people who complain that the R1 cant win on the track..

everybody bytched about the Gix owning the R1 on the track.. so now that the bike is track worthy.. people bytch its not long street worthy..

you cant have both.. what you can do is buy right bike for you!

 

[Juerg]

Juerg, the thrust curves in PB are not the same as taking a dynograph and moving the lines so that the hp at 13000 rpms is compared to the hp at 12000 rpms. a thrust curve compares tractive force v. speed and a dynograph compares hp v. rpm. apples and oranges.

Wrong TAFB, it basically is the same.
The thrust curves of Performance Bike Mag may be seen as "torque at rear wheel vs. speed" (as all wheels are 17" the conversion to traction is the same). Gearing shows here as amplification.
What I did was "HP at rear wheel vs speed" (I should have removed the HP as well as the RPM scales, to avoid misunderstandings maybe). If you compare the graphs you still get the same results (in comparison).

 

[WheelSpin]

But then what about the people who complain that the R1 cant win on the track..

everybody bytched about the Gix owning the R1 on the track.. so now that the bike is track worthy.. people bytch its not long street worthy..

you cant have both.. what you can do is buy right bike for you!

The basic GSX-R 1K motor still manages to put out respectable HP & torque numbers by '04 standards. It uses a longer stroke motor, but manages to do good on the track. I have no problem w/ short stroke configuration per se, as it has its benefits. The problem w/ generating higher torque output in shorter stroke designs becomes one of utilizing efficient combustion & fuel flow dynamics (a combination of optimizing the designs of the cylinder squish area, port flow, cam timing & duration, port size & angle, EFI control & atomization, exhaust flow management, to name a few...) to achive numbers that are competitive w/ longer stroke engines, & adjusting this combination of variables is not an easy juggle. According to some, the exhaust design (undertail - which I do prefer) may have been the primary contributor of the power curve dip, & I imagine the taller final drive ratios don't help. Even though it is a literbike, I would still like to see a little more balance among the 2 curves.

In this regard, I don't believe it helps production literbike development to have MotoGP rules that allow engines to have up to 6 clinders, as more cylinders always produces more power. Problem is, I don't think I'd enjoy a 5- or 6-cylinder sportbike, as I don't think they'd be particularly light & manueverable in comparison to an inline-4 cyl. machine. The racing's better in the turns than the straights anyways.

 

[Capafool]

all those graphs and reviews and all this stuff but in the end its the driver that makes all the difference. someone on a 600 could very well take out someone on a 1000 and all this talk about one bike having more power than the other is really not much. They are all great bikes and they all have great performance and there will never be one bike better than the other because the things that one has the others dont and vice versa. At the end it is the driver that matters. RIDE SAFE!!